New member (seeking advice)

Blitzn

Blitzn

New Member
Aug 20, 2010
54
Lake Huron, MI
Boat Info
2009 Sea Ray 270 Sundancer
1954 Custom Chris-Craft runabout (yes - the wood kind)
2006 Dodge Cummi
Engines
496 DTS on the 270DA
25 hp Elgin OB
5.9L Cummins
Good Morning,
We are thinking of purchasing a new leftover model and am interested in feedback and sufficient power (as of course the dealership claims).
Does a 2008 Sundancer 260 have enough power with a 5.7L 300hp B3? (Obviously the 6.2L or 496 are better options argh argh argh).
Thank you for any user insights....
Dennis
 
I did a sea trial on an '05 260DA (same as the '08 you're looking at) before I bought this boat. I felt that the 350 Mag was just fine for power. I didn't have the boat loaded though. Two adults and two kids. I'll admit that the sea trial didn't last too long as one of the power steering hose blew off, but power seemed to be fine.
 
Thanks for the input! Yes, it will be two adults, two growing kids, and mid-loaded
 
I had a 2005 260 with the 350MAG Bravo 3. I found it had enough power as well. We were 2 adults and 4 kids on that boat all the time on the Chesapeake bay. It got up on plane and cruised fine and wasn't as bad on fuel as the bigger engines. I do have the same engine in my Sundeck now and I like it even more as the Sundeck isn't near as heavy.
 
No problems here. The power plant is sufficient and economical.
 
Hello,

I was looking at trading my 2007 240 Sundeck with 350 MAG in for a leftover 2008 260DA. I was disappointed in the power and wasn't used to the high rpm's it took to get on plane. I also found the boat "tipsy", and didn't like the tendency to list without the use of trim tabs. A person in my marina just purchased a new 260DA, had it a weekend, and is trading it in for the "tipsiness". The new 260 is a smaller boat than leftover 260 you are looking at.

I know several people who have 260's with that power plant and love their boats, so this is just personal preference.

I purchased a 2010 280 Sundancer with 496 MAG last month and am very happy.

Hope this was helpful.
 
The 5.7 with bravo three is sufficient. It won't win any races out of the hole. But it will do just fine for that boat. A 454 is a good option but avoid the 496..... Now I know I am stirring up a hornets nest with that comment. But been told by a number of service techs the same thing.....
 
I believe 454's were phased out around 2001 for that boat. The option after that was a 6.2, and 496's were available for 2005 - 2008. When comparing years, the dry weight in the early 2000's was about 6,200 lbs, and the model had grown to 7,900 lbs by 2008. The 2005 - 2008 models had a 21 degree deadrise, and earlier models had a 19 degree deadrise. In 2009, Sea Ray went back to the 19 degree dead rise and redesigned the hull. They also renamed the models to correspond to overall length. It can be tricky when comparing 2008 models to 2009 models. In addition to looking at overall length, the weight of the boat needs to be considered.
 
Interesting thoughts and opinions.

Firerooster, as far as the tech commenting on 496's.... One of their strongest points has been their reliability. Now, as with most things Merc, they had problems in the early years (manifolds, pushrods, sea pumps, etc.), but issues have been corrected. The sea pump is still a problem, but is solveable.

You will here performance guys complain about the 496's because their sophistication and lack of forged internals make them a poor choice for adding horsepower, unlike the previous 454mag and 502 mag which were heralded by the performance guys.

If it were me, I would hold out for a 496 in a 260. Adequate performance has a tendency to become poor performance with mild changes in conditions, like weather, load, bottom growth, altitude, etc.

Also, the fact remains (even though it is commonly argued), the 496 will have nearly identical fuel cunsumption numbers at the same speed on plane as the small block.

Finally, while the 496 was an expensive upgrade when new, it doesn't seem to cost much on the used market. They are just a little harder to find.

Either way, the 260 is a nice vessel.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the input.
One rule I learned long ago - you can always throttle back on a larger engine, but you can't always throttle more out of a smaller one. As such - that is a concern - especially if towing tube's or anything. But the 496 also adds 200# to the stern, so the primo block is probably the 6.2L - but will see what I can find.
I appreciate the insight on the "tippiness" as I heard that mentions once before - but had forgotten about it. Good point - and many thanks!
-Dennis
 
Don't let the 200 pounds concern you. On a 260 you won't even notice it. Also, the torque (which is what really drives boats) is well past a 6.2

Before putting a 502 in an '80's 260, there were plenty of naysayers talking about ill-handling, fuel economy etc. The one source that I knew had done countless engine swaps said none of that was accurate. They were right.

The 502 made the 260 a better boat in absolutely every respect. There was not a single drawback.
 
Thanks for the input. We found a 496 in about the same size boat (the 270 DA). Much more better....
argh argh argh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,155
Messages
1,427,408
Members
61,063
Latest member
Donny1983
Back
Top